Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!amdahl!pacbell!pbhyf!rob
From: rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 miscellany
Message-ID: <5097@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Date: 23 Apr 89 11:58:42 GMT
References: <5191@nis.mn.org> <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> <14550@sequent.UUCP> <446@wubios.wustl.edu> <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <5216@nis.mn.org>
Reply-To: rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 48

In article <5216@nis.mn.org> pnessutt@nis.mn.org (Robert A. Monio) writes:
+In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:
+>In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
+>+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid.
+
+Thanks, John.  A little blunt maybe, but it does get the point
+across.
+
+John is a bit more blunt then the rest of us it seems.  I dropped my
+question about the punctuation changes only because I figured I was
+debating with someone who would not provide any real reason why it
+was done. I didn't figure it was worth my time anymore. 

The answer to the punctuation issue was already posted. I'll repeat it
here for the last time.

  Question: Why was proper punctuation used in elm 2.2 where it appears
  needlessly in those "mail disposition messages" when you leave elm?
  I say "needlessly" because those messages are already within square brackets.

  Answer: This was part of an effort not limited to just those messages,
  but rather a quite extensive change to make user messages more consistent
  among themselves in: style, terminology and punctuation. This consistency
  in user interface and proper use of punctuation was seen as a plus and
  there were no objections to the change within the elm development group.
  It didn't occur to anyone in the group that a teeny number of the messages
  that were changed were also in square brackets, and that someone mind
  find the use of punctuation in square brackets not just redundant but
  offensive.

+I've noticed over the last week though that there are other people who
+also don't necessarily agree with your 'changes for the sake of changes'
+methodology.

Excuse me, but I don't think anyone on the elm development team views
any of the changes as simply "for their own sake".

+  It's too bad though that
+you're not reasonable enough to listen and act accordingly. 

In fact, the issue of those "mail disposition messages" has been discussed
in the elm development group. What makes you think we haven't been listening?
What counts as "acting accordingly?" (That's not a rhetorical question.)
-- 
Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell UNIX/C Reusable Code Library
Email:     ...![backbone]!pacbell!pbhyf!rob   OR  rob@pbhyf.PacBell.COM
Office:    (415) 823-2417  Room 4E850O San Ramon Valley Administrative Center
Residence: (415) 827-4301  R Bar JB, Concord, California